June 28, 2005

Ten commandments: when will this issue go away?

For what it's worth, I find the ten commandments-in-courthouse issue really frustrating. The constitutional issue is pretty clear to any reasonable reader, and the Supreme Court said pretty much the same thing yesterday that it's always said about the issue, but the politics of it remain intractable. As far as I can tell there are three basic positions (with nuances within them):

1) The historically ignorant conservative position: We know some out-of-context historical facts! Washington was religious! Read Washington's Thanksgiving address; that's religious! The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution! The founding fathers were all Christian! Why are liberals scared of democracy? Why do liberals hate people of faith?

This position rears its ugly head once again this morning's George Will column, a masterpiece of stupidity and poor reasoning.

2) The liberal position (also known as "the constitutional position"): When the constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion," that means that the government cannot establish a national religion or endorse any religion or favor any religion or pass laws that are primarily religious in purpose or get excessively entangled in religion. In short, it can't pass laws respecting the establishment of religion. That's what the constitutional says, and we want to amend the constitution repealing the 1st amendment, no amount of griping will change the basic constitutional fact.

3) The wimpy liberal position (also known as the "'I'm asking the republican party to call me unprincipled' position"): The "real liberal position" is basically correct; but majorities like the ten commandments in courtrooms, and we wish it weren't so, but we need to win elections. So therefore we're willing to sacrifice the 1st amendment to political expediency.

And ne'er shall the three meet.

To be honest, though readers of this blog know that my position is #2, I can see the seduction of #3. Because in the big picture, what's a piece of paper in the courthouse when taken against the possibility of Democratic majorities in both houses? Of course, the problem is that the trade-off is not likely to work that way.

What I find must annoying though is that the conservative position often assumes the liberal position is hostile to religion, specifically to Christianity. Such an assumption is unreasonable, unfair, and wrong, and I won't rehash the the arguments, which are well known; but surely they're designed to make the conservative base see red, as it were.

And that makes trouble with the #3 position that even if liberals start going against their principles and allowing ten commandments displays, that won't suddenly change the minds of people who are already inclined to think liberals are anti-religion, because the leadership figures who say that will just find some other thing to whine about. Indeed, even if liberals somehow, suddenly, sincerely and wholesale changed their positions, I don't think conservatives would believe it.

In other words, it's hard to know how to argue against a lie that people want to believe (and the last 4 years have been all the evidence we need for that).

All of which is a long way of saying that I'm genuinely lost in this debate. Even though the constitutional question couldn't be clearer, it's not a political issue we can win in the foreseeable future. So how do we deal with it? Just not talk about it? Ideas?

Comments

I agree with you that #2 is the correct position to take. But I have to point out that you've mischaracterized position #3. The Supreme Court yesterday said 10C displays in courthouses (and courtrooms therein) are verboten. But if you want to put a monument on the grounds, with a bunch of other stuff around it, that's OK--and it is. People can walk around or ignore something that's just lying on the lawn. It's a lot harder to ignore when it's practically blinking in your face as you face the judge.

But if you want to put a monument on the grounds, with a bunch of other stuff around it, that's OK--and it is.

And I think they've said things before, in re: the various creches over the years, esp. in the Allegheny cases if memory serves

In a way the court's ruling makes the correct position harder to take. The public does favor 10C displays as far as I'm aware. This could turn into one of those stupid flag burning type debates -- SCOTUS rules on something, and republicans decide they want to overturn the ruling, so they try to enact a bunch of dumb laws and talk about constitutional amendments. And Dems have to take positions publicly on it, and etc. I still think the issue is to their advantage.

Could be. But the Republican extremists are going to go hog wild no matter what the Supreme Court does, because they aren't going to be happy (or think they won't) until we're a full-fledged theocracy. I don't think that's a good reason to tiptoe around what's right.

If the public wants to put up a 10C display, and they do it in a way that is constitutionally permissible, they should be able to. In the same way, if the public wants to put up a Buddhist prayer wheel, or a monument with the 99 names of God on it, they should be able to--as long as they do it in a way that is respectful of other religions, and in such a way that it cannot be considered a state endorsement of that particular religion, or of religion as a whole.

Would I be happier if people were content to leave religious displays in churches, mosques, and synagogues? Hell, yeah. But that's not likely to be happening any time soon. Meantime, maybe if the fundagelicals get a little of what they want, they'll calm down for a while. It should also make it harder for them to pull their favorite "help, help, we're being oppressed!" routine, and that could work to our advantage in any future court cases.

But the Republican extremists are going to go hog wild no matter what the Supreme Court does, because they aren't going to be happy (or think they won't) until we're a full-fledged theocracy. I don't think that's a good reason to tiptoe around what's right.

I agree.

If the public wants to put up a 10C display, and they do it in a way that is constitutionally permissible, they should be able to.

Yeah, I agree there too.

That doesn't mean that the political quandry goes away though. Most people don't give a fuck what the constitution says, and republicans don't either. They'll run around screaming about the liberal activist judges and people will mindlessly vote for them. It's worked for them before. And that's the point -- the part about the them getting the votes.

I'm not suggesting a solution, because I really don't have one. I think we agree on the basic problem: we don't want to be the wimpy liberals, because, well, that's wimpy. But standing on principle may exact a political price.

It should also make it harder for them to pull their favorite "help, help, we're being oppressed!" routine, and that could work to our advantage in any future court cases.

Yeah, I hope so too. But I'm not going to hold my breath. These are the same people still complaining about the liberal elites controlling everything.

As I see it the Founders were no more secularist than they were Fundamentalist. Both secular people and fundys claim the founders represent them, both are wrong. I go straight to their own words to cut through the rhetorical haze. Secular people claim the founders wanted separation of church, and all religion from public life, that is nonsense. Fundys claim they wanted a Christian nation, if not a theocracy, more nonsense.

First Amendment
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?"

Thomas Jefferson, "The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom"
"Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry. . . ."
Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia"
"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg..."
Thomas Jefferson, "Statute for Religious Freedom"
"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."
Thomas Jefferson, autobiography
"(When) the (Virginia) bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it's protections of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantel of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hondo and Infidel of every denomination."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short
"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition [Christianity] one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology."
James Madison, "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments"
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."
Benjamin Franklin (from his autobiography)
Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."
Benjamin Franklin, "2000 Years of Disbelief" by James Haught
"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its beginnings.

As this will be the last annual message which I shall have the honor of transmitting to Congress before my successor is chosen, I will repeat or recapitulate the questions which I deem of vital importance which may be legislated upon and settled at this session:

First. That the States shall be required to afford the opportunity of a good common-school education to every child within their limits.

Second. No sectarian tenets shall ever be taught in any school supported in whole or in part by the State, nation, or by the proceeds of any tax levied upon any community. Make education compulsory so far as to deprive all persons who can not read and write from becoming voters after the year 1890, disfranchising none, however, on grounds of illiteracy who may be voters at the time this amendment takes effect.

Third. Declare church and state forever separate and distinct, but each free within their proper spheres; and that all church property shall bear its own proportion of taxation (emphasis added). (A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents. Vol. X. New York: Bureau of National Literature, Inc., 1897, p. 4310)
“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men which are contrary to His Word or not contained in it. Church and state should be separate. The state owes to every church protection and full freedom in the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or denomination should be favored by the state more than others. Civil government being ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians to render loyal obedience thereto in all things not contrary to the revealed will of God. The church should not resort to the civil power to carry on its work. The gospel of Christ contemplates spiritual means alone for the pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to impose penalties for religious opinions of any kind. The state has no right to impose taxes for the support of any form of religion. A free church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and this implies the right of free and unhindered access to God on the part of all men, and the right to form and propagate opinions in the sphere of religion without interference by the civil power.” (emphasis added). Thomas Jefferson

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. (emphasis added) United States Constitution.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. (Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas Paine. New York: Everybody’s Vacation Publishing Co., 1945, p. 362)
20 GREATEST NAMES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
• John Adams - Spoke favorably of Freemasonry -- never joined
• Samuel Adams - (Close and principle associate of Hancock, Revere & other Masons
• Ethan Allen - Mason
• Edmund Burke - Mason
• John Claypoole - Mason
• William Daws - Mason
• Benjamin Franklin - Mason
• Nathan Hale - No evidence of Masonic connections
• John Hancock - Mason
• Benjamin Harrison - No evidence of Masonic connections
• Patrick Henry - No evidence of Masonic connections
• Thomas Jefferson - Deist with some evidence of Masonic connections
• John Paul Jones - Mason
• Francis Scott Key - No evidence of Masonic connections
• Robert Livingston - Mason
• James Madison - Some evidence of Masonic membership
• Thomas Paine - Humanist
• Paul Revere - Mason
• Colonel Benjamin Tupper - Mason
• George Washington - Mason
• Daniel Webster - Some evidence of Masonic connections
Summary: 10 Masons, 3 probable Masons, 1 Humanist, 2 Advocates of Freemasonry, 4 no record of connections.
SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Known Masons (8): Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Joseph Hewes, William Hooper, Robert Treat Payne, Richard Stockton, George Walton, William Whipple
Evidence of Membership And/or Affiliations (7): Elbridge Berry, Lyman Hall, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Nelson Jr., John Penn, George Read, Roger Sherman
Summary: 15 of 56 Signers were Freemasons or probable Freemasons.
It's true that this represents only 27% of the total signers. But this 27% included the principle movers of the Revolution, most notably Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, the primary authors of the Declaration. The former was a Freemason, the latter a deist and possible Freemason. If one were to analyze the Declaration, he would see the humanistic influences.
In any event, there is no evidence that even 27% of the signers were true Christians.